Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a closed rule, although I do understand the need for prompt action on the continuing resolution. As my good friend from Florida has pointed out, the Senate's slowness in acting on appropriations bills means that the continuing resolution that we are discussing here today is necessary.

However, as we prepare to provide the funds to keep the government running, I think we need to consider the larger budgetary picture. It is essential for us to respond to the devastation brought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita but, as we do, we should consider and respond to the fiscal and economic risks we have been running.

I think there is an urgent need for both the administration and the Congress to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies based on laws that defy the laws of fiscal gravity. For too long, there has been a dearth of both presidential leadership and accountability in this area.

That is why later today, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and perhaps the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), I will introduce a bill that I think could promote both. The bill is called the Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures Act, or the SLICE Act for short. It would do two things: First, it would authorize the President to identify specific items in Federal spending that he thinks should be cut; and second, require Congress to vote on each of those items.

The bill would apply both to appropriations and to spending items in the recently signed transportation bill. It would set deadlines for the President to propose cuts and for Congress to act on them.

Under the bill, Congress would have to vote on each proposed cut. We could not ignore those proposals, as can be done under current law, and if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect.

The President has said we should pay for responding to Katrina and Rita through spending cuts alone, but the President's own party and the majority in this House are divided on what to cut.

We may disagree on budget and tax priorities, Mr. Speaker, but one thing is certain. It is past time for a serious debate about specific proposals for ways to dig ourselves out of the deficit hole. This bill is intended to jump-start that debate.

I hope all of our colleagues will join us in this crucial effort to restore fiscal sanity to our Nation's Capital.

Mr. Speaker, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita not only brought death and destruction across a wide swath of the Gulf coast. They also delivered a blow to the Federal budget and sounded a wakeup call about the fiscal and economic risks we have been running.

A full response to these natural disasters must include more than emergency repairs, humanitarian relief, and community rebuilding. We also need to consider serious questions about the limits of government, the wisdom of wartime tax cuts, and our national capacity to look beyond short-term political priorities.

If anything good can come from these terrible storms, maybe it will be recognition by both the Bush administration and Congress that now we need to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies based on defying the laws of fiscal gravity. It's about time.

Even if Katrina and Rita had taken less destructive paths and the New Orleans levees had held, the problems would have been serious because the Federal budget was already on a dangerous course marked by tidal waves of red ink and towering piles of debt. Since 2001, the budget surplus that President Clinton and a Republican Congress bequeathed President Bush has been erased and our country is now in debt to the tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every American man, woman and child.

This was the result of several factors, of course, but the size and scope of the Bush tax cuts must bear a large part of the blame.

Several parts of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the marriage penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child care tax credits--were good. They gave a reasonable boost for the economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But having campaigned on giving back most of the budget surplus in tax cuts, President Bush insisted on much more, and Congress went along.

Many of us warned against reducing the surplus so recklessly, and urged the administration and Congress to remember the need to be ready for future emergencies. Our pleas for restraint were ignored. And then came the attacks of 9/11 and with them the need for increased spending on homeland security, a military response in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq. The budget nosedived from surplus into deep deficit.

Even in the face of national emergency, neither the President nor Congress has seen fit to call on Americans for any sacrifice, and instead of temporarily scaling back tax cuts, the President has insisted on making them permanent even as Federal spending has skyrocketed.

So now we are putting the costs of war and everything else the government does on the national credit card--but the debt is owed not just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and India.

Why have we allowed things to get so far out of hand?

Part of the answer is that budget and tax policy in Washington has been so captive to very partisan and extreme ideological voices that it has been hard to find common ground and moderate consensus.

Even in this time of war, extremists in the Republican Party view tax cuts as almost a religious calling, while some in my party reject any spending cuts except in defense. And the Vice President dismisses complaints by saying ``deficits don't matter.''

So, it not surprising that the appropriations process has not been marked by fiscal discipline. Unless the President or Congressional leaders proclaim a need for restraint, let alone sacrifice, why would Members of Congress not work to meet the transportation and infrastructure needs of their districts and seek funding for other valued purposes?

But all this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our budget policies, including both taxes and spending.

It could be that, just as they revealed the problem, Katrina and Rita can provide a catalyst to beginning that overdue job.

The President has said the Federal Government will undertake to help rebuild the communities left devastated by the storms--and has said that spending for other purposes should be reduced to offset the costs.

I have serious doubts about the adequacy of that approach, about the desirability of whatever spending cuts the President may propose, and about the readiness of Congress to seriously consider any cuts at all.

But I am hopeful that maybe at last the time has come for a serious debate about specific proposals for ways to dig ourselves out of the deficit hole.

To help begin such a serious debate, earlier this year I introduced legislation that would give the President authority to require Congress to vote, up or down, on specific appropriations items the President deemed unworthy of funding--a workable and Constitutional

alternative to the line item-veto legislation that the Supreme Court struck down in 1998.

Now, I am introducing an updated version of this bill that focuses directly on the President's suggestion that disaster response costs be offset with spending cuts.

The bill is called the Stimulating Leadership In Cutting Expenditures or, ``SLICE'' Act.

That name fits because the bill would promote Presidential leadership and Congressional accountability on proposals to reduce other spending in order to offset the costs of responding to the recent natural disasters.

Toward that end, it would authorize the President to identify specific items of Federal spending that he thinks should be cut and would require Congress to vote on each of those items.

The bill would apply not only to regular appropriations, but also to the transportation bill that was passed and signed into law earlier this year.

The bill would establish a two-phase process: the President would have until November 1st to tell Congress which, if any, of the spending in the transportation bill should be cancelled. And he would have until the end of this year to identify any items in fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills we wants to eliminate.

In each case, if the President proposes a cut, Congress would have to vote on it--we could not ignore the proposal, as can be done under current law--and if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect.

Mr. Speaker, as our budget situation has grown worse, there has been a lot of talk about ``earmarks,'' meaning funding allocations initially proposed by Members of Congress rather than by the Administration.

Some people are opposed to all earmarks. I am not one of them. I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and that Congress as a whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax dollars are to be spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited Colorado and I will continue to do so.

At the same time, I know--everyone knows--that sometimes a large bill includes some earmarked items that might not be approved if they were considered separately, because they would be seen as unnecessary, inappropriate, or excessive.

Dealing with that problem requires leadership and accountability. My bill would promote both.

Presidents are elected to lead, and only they represent the entire Nation. The bill recognizes this by giving the President the leadership role of identifying just which other spending he thinks should be cut in order to offset some of the amounts the Federal Government will be spending in response to recent natural disasters.

And, under the Constitution, it is the Congress that is primarily accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars will be spent. The bill respects and emphasizes that Congressional role by requiring a vote on each spending cut proposed by the President.

I do not know exactly which spending the President might propose to cut, so I do not know whether I would support some, all, or any of those proposals.

But I do know that we should stop wasting time in theoretical debates about whether we should make spending cuts and start debating specific proposals.

My bill is intended to get that debate started now.

For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill:

Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (SLICE) Act

The purpose of the bill is to facilitate Presidential

leadership and Congressional accountability regarding

reduction of other spending to offset the costs of responding

to recent natural disasters.

The bill would amend the Budget Act to provide as follows:

The President could propose rescission of any budget

authority provided in the recently passed transportation bill

or an appropriations Act through special messages including

draft bills to make those rescissions.

The President would have until November 1, 2005 to propose

canceling spending items in the new Transportation Act and

until January 1, 2006 to propose rescissions from FY 06

appropriations bills.

The House's majority leader or minority leader would be

required to introduce a bill proposed by the President within

two legislative days. If neither did so, any Member could

then introduce the bill.

The relevant Committee would be required to report the bill

within seven days after introduction. The report could be

made with or without recommendation regarding its passage. If

the Committee did not meet that deadline, it would be

discharged and the bill would go to the House floor.

The House would debate and vote on each proposed rescission

within 10 legislative days after the bill's introduction.

Debate would be limited to no more than four hours and no

amendment, motion to recommit, or motion to reconsider would

be allowed.

If passed by the House, the bill would go promptly to the

Senate, which would have no more than 10 more days to

consider and vote on it. Debate in the Senate would be

limited to 10 hours and no amendment or motion to recommit

would be allowed.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for this bill as it stands.

I support much of the thrust of the original bill. I support putting more emphasis on recovery plans and on steps to provide incentives for landowners and other private parties to help with recovering species. And the Resources Committee did make improvements in the original bill.

Unfortunately, though, other needed amendments were not approved--and as a result I concluded that the bill's defects were still so numerous and so serious that it should not be approved without further changes.

That was why I supported the bipartisan substitute. Had it been adopted, we would have kept the best parts of the bill as reported-- including the authorization for reimbursement for livestock losses that I supported in the Resources Committee--and made the further improvements that were needed for it to deserve approval by the full House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, that did not occur, so we are left with a bill that does not include those improvements.

Proponents of the reported bill say the Endangered Species Act has led to too many lawsuits. But according to the Bush Administration's analysis of the bill as reported, ``the new definition of jeopardy in the bill, as well as various statutory deadlines, may generate new litigation and further divert agency resources from conservation purposes.'' The substitute did not have the same problems.

Similarly, the substitute did not include the reported bill's vague provisions that would set up a new entitlement program--a program without clear boundaries that would increase federal spending to an extent that cannot be easily calculated.

Those provisions worry the Bush Administration, which has told us that they ``provide little discretion to Federal agencies and could result in a significant budgetary impact.''

And after reviewing the bill as reported, the nonpartisan budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, concluded that ``This legislation is rife with loopholes and vague wording that have the potential to cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and must be revised.''

I supported the bipartisan substitute because it would have made the revisions necessary to close those loopholes.

Nonetheless, while I cannot support the bill today, I am hopeful that it will be further improved as the legislative process continues and that the result will be legislation to revise the Endangered Species Act that I can support and that will deserve the support of every Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 50th Anniversary of McGuckin's Hardware Store in Boulder, Colorado. McGuckin's is a landmark in Boulder and has long had a very special reputation for stocking hard-to-find items.

McGuckin's was opened in 1955 by Bill McGuckin, a rugged outdoorsman and avid fisherman. The store originally consisted of only four employees and four departments with a business ethic based on Bill McGuckin's belief in personalized service, selection, and first-hand experience. In 1960, Dave Hight joined his father-in-law, Bill, as a partner, and together they committed themselves to fostering McGuckin's well-deserved reputation as ``the Greatest Hardware Store in the World.''

After Mr. McGuckin's passing in 1966, Mr. Hight continued the excellent service and selection offered to customers. His company continued to grow over the next 50 years, and today, this independently-owned business has prospered to employ 315 individuals in all its operations. In addition to its 60,000+ square foot sales floor with over 200,000 items for sale, there is a Design Center and a Distribution Center nearby to meet every customer's need. You name it, they have it. When there's a problem with something they sell, they fix it. In the unlikely event they don't have that particular something for which you were looking, their knowledgeable, experienced staff knows where to order it and does so with a friendly manner and without a fuss.

Not surprisingly, McGuckin's has developed a loyal and devoted clientele. Boulder's Daily Camera readers have voted it ``Best Hardware Store,'' ``Best Locally-Owned Store'' and ``Best Customer Service.'' ``Best Customer Service'' is an understatement; McGuckin's employees are beyond comparison. They wear green and are found in almost every aisle. You can still find Dave Hight in the middle aisle. They give plain, old-fashioned, perfect service with no hovering or hard-sell. No matter which department they work in, they all know where everything in the store is located.

McGuckin's quality service doesn't stop with humans either; this store welcomes pets on-leash too. As dog-lovers on my staff will tell you, most of Boulder's best-behaved dogs and puppies began refining their social skills by shopping in McGuckin's pet supply department. Employees dressed in green will greet customers and their pets and will often ask permission to give the dog a treat. While I have never tried one, I am reliably informed by pet owners that if you give permission, the most ``delectable tidbits'' come out of those green smock pockets. McGuckin's is, therefore, not only a big hit with people working on their week-end home improvement projects, it is also popular with Boulder's canine population.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging David Hight and his employees for their commitment to uniquely serving their customers. If you're ever visiting Boulder, I hope you'll have the chance to go to McGuckin's. You won't be sorry and you won't find any store like it in this day and age. I congratulate David Hight and all the employees and their families on this 50th Anniversary and wish them good health and happiness in McGuckin's future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, though I have concerns about one specific provision that would go too far to allow discrimination.

The basic tenet of Head Start is as true today as it was a generation ago--quality early education programs can be instrumental in helping children overcome barriers to learning. This program not only plays an important role in providing opportunities for the next generation but also has an important impact on our economy. For every dollar spent on Head Start, we receive seven dollars back. There are few federal programs that can boost that kind of success.

As a nation we must ensure that our children are prepared, academically, emotionally and nutritionally to enter school. Removing the outside forces that result in under-prepared students opens up children's minds to learn and gain an education. Head Start is one of the most important programs in our government and I am pleased to see this bill come to the floor with bipartisan support.

Unfortunately, I have concerns about an amendment passed by this body that allows faith-based Head Start grantees to discriminate in hiring based on religion. Federally supported programs should never support discrimination in its programs on any level. Since Head Starts inception in 1972 it has never discriminated in hiring for faith based and other organizations. There is no need to start now.

I was pleased the House did not adopt an amendment offered by Ms. Musgrave that would allow for-profit Head Start providers to collect federal funds as profit. While for-profit Head Start grantees play an important role in school readiness, I do not support allowing them to collect a profit from federal grants provided to serve low-income students. Any savings from funds designated for administrative costs should go towards serving the needs of these low-income students. This amendment provides the wrong type of incentive for Head Start grantees.

While this bill is not perfect, there are many provisions that will provide needed and worthwhile reforms to Head Start. Head Start has proven to be a successful program and this bill will largely make it even more successful and efficient. So Mr. Chairman, I am voting in favor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this rule, though there are some positive aspects to highlight.

I am pleased that the Rules Committee made several amendments in order, specifically my own amendment increasing funding to the Advance Technological Education program and Mr. Gordon's amendment requesting a three-year programmatic and operational plan for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

However, I feel this rule would have been improved by making in order Mr. Honda's amendment authorizing the Advanced Technology Program. This legislation has been described as a means to create jobs and support manufacturing. ATP does just this. This program has proven results and is an effective investment for our manufacturing and technological industries. The Committee's decisions seem short-sighted, especially since the manufacturing sector is still suffering. Mr. Honda's amendment deserves debate on the floor and I feel the Rules Committee has missed an opportunity to improve this bill.

In the end I did not feel that the good outweighed the bad in this rule. So I will be voting against the rule and I urge members to do the same.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill even though we have missed an opportunity to improve upon it.

While I am pleased that we are providing an authorization for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and supporting the vital MEP program, this bill falls short by failing to authorize the Advanced Technology Partnership, ATP.

I am also disappointed that this body did not pass my amendment increasing funding for the Advanced Technological Education program. ATE works with community colleges and industry to assure that students entering the workforce have the skills they need to be competitive. A technologically trained workforce is vital to strong manufacturing and technological industries, and ATE directly impacts the workforce.

We have heard over and over again today the need to better support our manufacturing industry. And I believe there are portions of this bill that make important strides in that direction. For example, this bill includes authorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program at $110 million for FY06. MEP provides vital support to small manufacturing companies in our country to remain successful and competitive in a global market. These small manufacturing companies make up 98 percent of the manufacturing industry in this country, yet they are continually struggling and jobs are being lost. MEP centers works directly with local manufacturers to provide expertise and services tailored to their most critical needs, which range from process improvements and worker training to business practices and information technology applications. This is a Federal, State, and private-sector partnership where every Federal dollar leverages two dollars in state and private-sector funding. A small Federal investment leverages billions of dollars in benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, investment and sales.

This bill also provides authorization numbers for the construction and maintenance of NIST facilities. The urgency of this is shown by the facilities in my district, which are 50 plus years old and in need of maintenance. These authorization levels will allow NIST to upgrade these facilities to ensure they continue to perform cutting edge research.

While this bill widely supports MEP it leaves behind another highly successful program, ATP. We have continually heard the majority express their support for this program, but time and time again they have not taken the opportunity to fund it. During the markup of this bill in the Science Committee Mr. Honda offered a similar amendment to the one he offered before the Rules Committee. His amendment had the same authorization levels that were upheld in the Senate a week ago. Unfortunately, the majority did not support it. When I offered an amendment to fund current ATP projects through completion and cover close-out costs, Chairman Boehlert indicated that my amendment would mean that we have ``given up on ATP.'' But what I see is that the Republican majority supports this important program with words, rather than deeds. I was hopeful that we would agree with the Senate and support ATP aggressively since the program has proven to be effective. Now we must look to the Senate to improve this bill.

Madam Chairman, though we face a tough budgetary future we need to realign our priorities to provide the foundation for our economy to grow. We no longer have the luxury of only competing with ourselves. Countries across the globe have the skills, knowledge, and workforce to compete in manufacturing and technological innovation. At the same time, we are witnessing in this country a decline in science and math graduates, below average test scores in math, and jobs continually being moved overseas.

While this bill does improve upon the current situation, it in no way solves enough to truly invigorate our manufacturing industry. We need to truly support research and development, science and math education, and workforce training.

So Madam Chairman, it is with disappointment that I support this bill. It is a modest and narrow effort to support this country's manufacturing base, but it is better than nothing in terms of supporting manufacturing.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, we have heard repeatedly today about the importance of supporting our Nation's manufacturing industry. One of the most critical elements of our manufacturing competitiveness is a technically trained workforce.

My amendment addresses this by increasing authorization levels of the Advanced Technological Education program.

This important amendment has the support of the American Association of Community Colleges. The ATE program works with community colleges to develop curricula designed to prepare students for the local job market. This program has been highly successful with only modest funding.

This amendment would boost the authorization for ATE from the $55 million currently in H.R. 250 to $70 million. The ATE program is different from other technical and vocational programs in that it works directly with industry to identify the skill sets students will need to compete and enter the workforce.

Arguments have been made that this is too high of a budgetary increase and that this would make the ATE program the highest funded education program in the National Science Foundation.

However, if you look at this, actually the level of authorization in my amendment is well within the NSF doubling authorization levels that passed this House overwhelmingly in 2002. At the same time, there are several programs that receive greater funding in the education directorate at NSF.

In fact, authorizing the ATE at $70 million ranks the program sixth. This is a small investment that will provide long-term dividends for our manufacturing industry. I urge Members of this body to support the technological training of our workforce and to vote in favor of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) as well as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis). The point of the authorized levels that we are proposing in this amendment is to meet the demand. This is not just a number that we pulled out of the air. It is a number that reflects the demand that the National Science Foundation is seeing for this particular area of ATE.

If we were to meet the demand that NSF typically will meet, it would be at 25 percent of the proposal that would be funded. That means 75 percent of the proposals are not funded. That number is about $68 million. So all we are trying to do is give the appropriators the flexibility to meet this important demand.

Why is this demand important? Well, if you think about the jobs that are created because of this investment, and the debate we have had today about the importance of manufacturing in our future, this makes real sense.

The students that are being funded based on the American Association of Community Colleges numbers, 47 percent are African American, 56 percent are Hispanic. These colleges play a crucial role in serving our minority communities, populations which my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), knows are underrepresented in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields. There is no better way to make a real impact for a small investment on the long-term future of our economy. Please support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the century of service the Cheesman Dam has provided Coloradans. The dam is an engineering marvel that has provided water to the Denver metropolitan area for the past century.

The dam was constructed with the goal of providing the natural resources necessary to Denver area expansion. The dam has provided effective water management that has brought both environmental stability and economic growth to Denver.

Chief Engineer C.P. Allen executed the construction of Cheesman Dam with speed, precision, and creativity. The dam contains three million cubic feet of masonry, 21,000 tons of concrete and weighs an impressive 300,000 tons. The world's largest dam at the time of its completion, Cheesman was hailed by many as an engineering marvel. Though it didn't remain the largest dam in the world, it has continued to garner engineering acclaim. In 1975 it was proclaimed a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Cheesman's engineering prowess and historical significance are not its only qualities worthy of praise. The dam is, in many ways, a unique reflection of the Colorado spirit. Built to emulate the surrounding natural area, Cheesman's granite construction attempts to assimilate modem engineering advancement with the beauty of Colorado's open space. Its spillway follows the same pattern as it was intentionally developed in the formation of a natural cliff rather then a typical dam.

The American Society of Civil Engineers explains that the, ``Cheesman Dam is . . . of such historical significance and contemporary importance that is should never be forgotten, but placed side-by-side with other national and historical landmarks of the engineering profession.''

Its 100th anniversary is an accomplishment for the hundreds of workers that laid the stone in its construction and its talented engineers. Special recognition is also owed Denver Water and all of its employees--past and present--who have maintained this critical feature of Denver's water supply system. Through the efforts of Denver Water and the foresight of those who built this facility 100 years ago, Denver has been able to thrive and prosper.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the important contributions Ray C. Christensen has made to Colorado and the country's agricultural community. Ray has served as the executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau for the last 20 years and with his retirement, Colorado will lose a powerful advocate for agriculture.

Shortly after I was elected to the State legislature in 1996, I came to know Ray and was often reminded of how highly regarded he was at the State capitol. I was aware of agricultural issues, but hardly an expert--and I knew other legislators in both parties who took a somewhat disdainful attitude toward farm issues. Others felt that agricultural matters were best left to State legislators from rural areas. But as Lew Entz--now a State Senator--reminded me, ``If you eat, you are in agriculture.''

I took that to heart then, and I take it to heart as a Member of Congress. From the farm to the table, nothing is plainer or more important, and no one embodies this truth better than Ray Christensen.

Ray's professional biography makes this abundantly clear. He graduated from South Dakota University with a B.S. and graduate degrees in geography and agriculture. He has held positions at the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, the Missouri River Basin Commission, and the office of Public Affairs for the Farm Bureau. He has also served on the Colorado Agricultural Council, Denver Agricultural and Livestock Club, Colorado Public Expenditures Council, Colorado Medical Society Foundation, CSU Cooperative Extension Advisory Council and Colorado Commission on Taxation.

As executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, Ray cultivated valuable relationships with Colorado businesses, environmental organizations, and social advocacy groups, ensuring long- term progress that spans beyond the agricultural community. Uniquely dedicated to cooperation and driven by the concerns of the family farm, Ray has provided invaluable service to Colorado agriculture.

Ray and I come from different walks of life and different political leanings, but I have always respected his depth of experience and his steadfast commitment to rural America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ray Christensen and in wishing him success in all his future endeavors. It has been a privilege to work with him on a number of issues, and as a friend from Colorado once remarked to me, ``It's a whole lot better to have Ray on your side than the other way around.''

I couldn't say it any better.

Mr. Speaker, heroes are those select few among us who are endowed with courage and strength, those who risk life and limb to further a cause greater than themselves. I rise today to honor seven such heroes, the astronaut crew of STS-114.

These men and women should be very proud of what they accomplished on this historic mission. Through their bravery and ingenuity they helped bring our manned space program back to life. After two-and-a-half years on the ground, we have finally returned to space to continue our exploration into the unknown.

Though our shuttle program still faces many challenges in the months and years to come, we are taking time today to acknowledge the progress NASA has been made thus far. I would like to thank those responsible, not just the astronauts, but the entire NASA team, thousands of dedicated men and women at NASA centers across the country, for their commitment.

In honoring the astronauts of STS-114, we should not forget those who came before them. By continuing our exploration of space, this mission continues their legacy. I am sure that the brave souls who gave their lives aboard the Columbia would be very proud of this Discovery crew.

Their steps of progress will lead us into the next chapter of human exploration.

Thank you and I urge members to suspend the rules and pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to reestablish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an independent agency, and to require that its Director be someone with appropriate training and experience.

The undeniable shortcomings of the federal response to the tragic effects of Hurricane Katrina have shown that FEMA' s most recent director, Michael Brown, was not qualified for the Job--in fact, he really was in over his head. Now that he has resigned, Congress should begin the process of strengthening FEMA and assuring Americans that Federal emergency management efforts will be handled by a capable and effective leader.

As a first step, I think we should revisit and reverse our decision to fold FEMA--formerly an independent agency--into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

I was never completely comfortable with that decision. When the House considered the legislation to establish the new Department, I voted for an amendment (offered by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar) to keep FEMA independent. I did so because, as I said at the time, I feared FEMA's core mission and focus would be lost in the new bureaucracy.

It was argued that FEMA--as the central agency in charge of disaster response and emergency management--should constitute the heart of the new DHS. But FEMA had been primarily engaged in and especially effective at responding to natural hazards, not terrorism. We should have left FEMA outside the new department, or at a minimum transferred its Office of National Preparedness to the new department, while leaving FEMA's Disaster Response and Recovery and Mitigation Directorates intact

Although the independent-FEMA amendment failed, I voted for the overall bill while expressing the hope that ``the President will continue to work with the Congress to make sure the agencies moved to the new Department will be supported in their many other important duties even as they focus anew on their security roles.''

Unfortunately, recent events have given horrific proof that I hoped in vain and that my fears were well-founded.

Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will reestablish FEMA as a separate agency. It also will require that its Director be a person with appropriate formal training and at least two years of experience as the head of a disaster-management agency of either a State or a political entity--a city, county, or other area--smaller than a state but with a population of at least one million people.

To provide continuity and insulation against politics, a director, once nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would serve a 6-year term--although of course, as an Executive Branch official he or she would be subject to the direction and control of the President and thus could be removed by the President.

Reorganizing FEMA is only part of the necessary actions to respond to the tragedy and devastation on the Gulf Coast. But I think it is a necessary part, and I think this bill would help us be better prepared for the next emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Audrey Berry. This week, Ms. Berry will be retiring from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) where she served for over 12 years at DOE's Grand Junction Office on Colorado's Western Slope.

Her work at DOE, as well as her long career in public service, demonstrates her dedication and commitment to community concerns and enhancing the quality of life for those in Colorado, the Rocky Mountain region and across the country.

Serving as a Public Affairs Specialist at DOE's Grand Junction Office since January 25, 1993, Ms. Berry consistently has demonstrated a high level of performance. At this position she successfully engaged the communities surrounding DOE's Fernald and Mound Sites in Ohio and the Rocky Flats Site near Denver, Colorado in the establishment of Local Stakeholder Organizations, which provide opportunities for the public to comment on and be involved with the ongoing monitoring of the cleanup at these former nuclear weapons production facilities. She also helped develop a successful transition strategy for public participation at DOE sites that are slated for closure.

Ms. Berry also was instrumental in establishing one of the first DOE Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSAB) in November 1993 for the Monticello uranium mill tailings remediation site in Monticello, Utah. She developed the application for perspective members and interviewed applicants; managed the budget for the duration of the SSAB; provided DOE-Headquarters with required reports and action; organized meetings, was the liaison between the members, DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Utah; followed up on action items; was responsible in attempting to meet diversity requirements, and resolved issues of concern. Ms. Berry also was instrumental in disbanding the SSAB when the mission was completed. Her involvement with the community of Monticello continued for six years.

Also at the Monticello site, Ms. Berry organized, developed and implemented the plan to transfer DOE property located at the Monticello site to the City of Monticello for recreational use. Utilizing the General Services Administration and National Park Service's ``Lands to Park'' Program, the property was successfully transferred in June 2000.

Ms. Berry also supported numerous projects assigned to DOE's Grand Junction Office. During her tenure, she developed public participation plans and established outstanding relationships with numerous stakeholder groups, including congressional, state and local officials, tribal members, special interest groups, citizen's advisory boards, the media, and individual citizens. In order to successfully interface with the multiple contacts she enjoyed, Ms. Berry possessed a broad technical knowledge of all of the assigned projects.

Ms. Berry also organized and conducted numerous workshops and conferences for DOE's Grand Junction Office. Most notably, four Long Term Stewardship Workshops were held, each with 225 to 300 attendees. And, she organized a Stakeholders Conference on Worker Transition and Legacy Benefits for DOE's Office of Legacy Management. This effort was especially important and noteworthy. She recognized, as do many at DOE, that providing health care and benefits for people who worked at DOE sites--sites that involved the handling of hazardous materials--is an important obligation that we as a nation owe to these workers. Her attention to detailed plans has assured successful and well-attended events and helped promote policies to address worker transition issues and public involvement regarding the long-term integrity of cleanup and closure of DOE sites.

Ms. Berry has been the recipient of at least 16 various awards, namely Special Act Awards, Individual Incentive Awards, and Group Awards during her tenure with DOE's Grand Junction Office.

Before joining DOE in 1993, she served as the Western Slope Office Director for Colorado Senator Tim Wirth. At this position, she helped constituents address issues and concerns with federal programs and policies. Prior to working for Senator Wirth, she performed the same service to citizens of Colorado's Western Slope in Representative Ray Kogovsek's office when he represented the 3rd Congressional District in Colorado.

Ms. Berry's work at all of these offices underscores her deep commitment to service for the communities she has served. What's especially impressive has been her personal touch--the way that she interacts with people so that they are included in policy decisions and treated with seriousness and respect. In so doing, she has been effective in getting the job done and involving the public and various stakeholders. Her accomplishments and style are models for the type of quality in public service that we all can seek to emulate.

I am sure that Ms. Berry will remain active in issues of importance to communities along Colorado's Western Slope or wherever life takes her. I wish her much future success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 35th anniversary of Cleo Parker Robinson Dance and its founder, Cleo Parker Robinson. Cleo Parker Robinson uses dance as a bridge to unite diverse communities and overcome cultural, age, class, and language barriers. A night watching a Cleo Parker Robinson Dance performance is simply unforgettable, making it a well-known gem in the Colorado arts community.

Cleo Parker Robinson Dance has been an essential part of the Colorado arts community since its inception in 1970. The organization includes a professional company, a year-round dance school, an International Summer Dance Institute, and a Cleo Parker Robinson Dance Theater. In addition, CPRD created two programs, Season of Schools and Project Self Discovery, which focus on introducing dance to low-income and at-risk students. Season of Schools serves Denver Public Schools students and students from surrounding school districts with performances and workshops, introducing students to dance as an outlet of expression. Project Self Discovery, funded through a government grant, provides intensive dance study to at-risk youth as an alternative to gangs, drugs and delinquency.

Cleo Parker Robinson Dance has spent the last 35 years working to strengthen communities in some of Denver's poorest neighborhoods. Cleo Parker Robinson utilizes the power of dance to find the commonalities that unify communities. Her leadership and dedication shows that with hard work we can continue to move towards a society that flourishes from our cultural diversity.

I want to commend Cleo Parker Robinson Dance for its accomplishments over the past 35 years and for continuing to bring beautiful, unique and innovative forms of dance to eager audiences around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Larry Ernst, of Boulder, Colorado, for his recent nomination as an IBM Fellow, the company's highest and most prestigious technical honor.

IBM Fellows are selected for sustained and distinguished technical achievements in engineering, programming and technology. There have only been 185 Fellows in the past 42 years of the company's existence, and currently there are only 58 active employees who share this distinction out of an astounding 325,000 employees worldwide.

IBM Fellows provide innovative solutions not only valuable for the future of this massive company, but also for the entire world. Fellows such as Mr. Ernst have developed some of the most useful products and applied technologies the industry and computer users have ever seen.

Larry Ernst has led the strategic definition and implementation of critical technologies for the Printing Systems Division, and his work in the area of print and image quality has been the foundation for many new products. Already, Mr. Ernst holds nine issued patents, serves as the patent coordinator for the division, and has been named an IBM Master Inventor for his works.

Larry Ernst joins two other distinguished Boulder residents, Ernest Booch and Joan Mitchell, as IBM Fellows. I am proud to have three out of the 58 active IBM Fellows in Colorado's Second Congressional District. It is quite a compliment to the men and women of Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Larry Ernst and in wishing him continued success in all future endeavors as an IBM Fellow.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am very proud of my constituents in Boulder, Colorado, for their unsurpassed commitment to a clean environment. Indeed, Boulder's exceptionally clean air and water make the Second District of Colorado a very special place.

When a company can provide jobs and be a real contributor to the economy of Boulder, and it can do so in way that shows the utmost respect for the environment, the citizens of my district are doubly fortunate. Lexmark International, Inc. is just such a company.

One of the world's largest manufacturers of printers and developers of printing solutions, Lexmark has a large facility in Boulder that has recently achieved ISO (International Standardization Organization) 14001 certification for its environmental management system. ISO 14001 is the world's most recognized environmental management system framework, helping organizations better manage their impact on the environment and continually improve their environmental performance.

Lexmark employees worked for years to achieve this important certification. Such certifications do not come easily, and Lexmark's employees in Boulder are to be commended for their commitment to pollution prevention and for the overall environmental ethic that enabled them to achieve this important milestone.

This achievement is only the most recent environmental award received by the Lexmark facility in Boulder. In 2003, the city of Boulder awarded its PACE (Partners for a Clean Environment) Pioneer Award to Lexmark. This award is given annually to the business best exemplifying the goals of the PACE program.

For almost a decade beginning in 1993, Lexmark participated in the Colorado Governor's Pollution Prevention Challenge, and the plant also received the U.S. EPA's 33/50 award for toxic chemical use reduction in the early-to-mid 1990s.

In all, the record this facility has established for well over a decade is remarkable. My hat is off to the employees at the Lexmark facility in Boulder who share such an obviously genuine and profound commitment to environmental protection.

I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in commending Lexmark for this notable achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the Barrett family on the death of Carol Barrett, the mother of my staff member Jennifer Barrett. Jennifer and her family came up with some reflections on Carol's life that I would like to submit for the Record. I know that Carol died from complications related to Parkinson's disease, an illness I am all too familiar with, since my father also lost a long struggle with Parkinson's in 1998.

I continue my fight for a cure for Parkinson's as co-chair of the Bi- Cameral Caucus on Parkinson's Disease. The fight is too big for one individual, but working together I believe we can make great strides. What we achieve as a community will impact medical research, health care delivery, and millions of people throughout the country and the world. Continuing our search for a cure for Parkinson's won't save Carol's life, but it will go a long way to honor her memory.

Reflections on the Life of Carol Thomae Barrett

Carol was born November 12, 1938 in Boston to parents with

strong ties to their Scandinavian and German heritage. Family

ties were strengthened further when two Thomae brothers

married two Larson sisters. Carol had no siblings, but her

two cousins, Ken and Bob Thomae were very close to her, and

became her brothers.

The families attended the Lutheran church in Dorchester and

much of Carol's social life was connected with the youth

activities of the church. An old photograph shows her as the

Lucia Girl, chosen from the entire Boston area. She excelled

in her academic studies, making it possible for her to attend

Girl's Latin School in Boston, and subsequently to be

admitted to Wellesley College as an English major.

A blind date for a day of skiing with a Harvard medical

student named Peter changed her life, and Peter's, forever.

They were married during their respective final years in

school and moved into their first home, a fifth floor walk-up

apartment in Boston.

Peter's princely wages of $60 per month as a resident in

Internal Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital did

not stretch very far, and Carol became the bread-winner by

combining a teaching assistant position with a Masters

program offered by Tufts University. Subsequently, her work

as an elementary school teacher in Boston and in Bethesda,

Maryland, provided most of our small family's support. The

family expanded in 1963 with the arrival of John in 1963, in

Bethesda, where Peter spent three years in research at the

National Institutes of Health. Following an additional year

in Boston, marked by the arrival of Jennifer, the family

headed for the Wild West, where Peter continued his medical

training, and then joined the faculty at Harbor-UCLA Medical

Center in Gastroenterology in 1967. In the early years of

marriage, Carol and Peter moved five times in a span of seven

years, and they were very glad to move into a home in Palos

Verdes where they could stay for a longer time. That home was

located at 29377 Quailwood Drive, and that was 38 years ago.

The third young Barrett, Anna, joined the family in 1969.

Carol was an active participant in community affairs,

particularly with the Peninsula Committee for the

Philharmonic, and became its President in 1990-91. She

enjoyed her involvement in the PTA, various tennis leagues,

book club, and numerous family trips to Montana and Colorado.

Vacations often involved visiting Carol's family in the

Boston area, or welcoming them into the home in Palos Verdes.

Carol's grandmother, ``Great Nana,'' was born in Sweden and

had never traveled by air until she visited the Barretts. She

enjoyed her visit greatly and became a ``regular''.

Carol always considered her most important roles to be in

the home. Her consistent support was vital to Peter's success

in his medical career, and was equally important in providing

a wonderful home for their three children. She was their

counselor, teacher, booster, and most of all, she was their

mother. True to a lifelong pattern, on her last shopping trip

she bought two dresses ``for the girls.''

Parkinson's disease was first diagnosed eleven years ago,

but Carol was determined to continue with her many activities

as long as possible. Initially she was very successful in

these efforts, but the past several years brought increasing

difficulty and frustration as her Parkinson's worsened.

Nevertheless, because of the steadfast support of her large

circle of friends, she was able to continue and to enjoy most

of her social activities.

Carol's final trip consisted of a series of wonderful

visits with family and friends. It included a visit with

daughter Jennifer in Washington, with tours of the Capitol

and White House; a day spent with life-long friends near

Boston; several days of Harvard and Wellesley reunion

activities; and a visit with her cousins in suburban Boston.

At this point, new health problems developed which resulted

in hospitalization at the Massachusetts General Hospital, the

hospital where she was born. All of her family were with her

when she finally slipped away. Life for her family and

friends will not be the same without her.